In 2018, Yale undergraduate neuroscience student Saifullah Khan was acquitted following charges stemming from accusations by a student identified as "Jane Doe" of raping her in 2015. Although Khan argued that the encounter was consensual, he was arrested and subsequently suspended from the university. After being targeted by an online campaign not to readmit him, Khan was eventually allowed to return to Yale but was then suspended a second time after new allegations kicked off a disciplinary hearing.

At the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Assault (UWC) hearing, however, the accuser gave a remote statement but failed to provide any testimony under oath. Therefore, Khan was unable to fully present evidence and engage in cross-examination—one of the due process provisions colleges typically afford parties in disciplinary hearings. Moreover, Yale failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings, limiting the accused's ability to navigate the proper channels for appeals, leading to his expulsion. Khan sued both Yale and Jane Doe, and later, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled unanimously that he had fewer rights to defend himself in Yale's proceedings than in criminal court.

Another Chance for Khan's Defense

One of the most significant nuances to come out of the Khan case is the fact that the state's high court recently ruled that the accuser should not receive full immunity because Yale's UWC hearing lacked numerous procedural safeguards for Khan's defense. For example, Khan was unable to engage in cross-examination or call witnesses for supportive testimony.

Khan's hearing was conducted under Obama-era regulations when schools were not required to permit cross-examination and other provisions to protect the accused but did not outright ban them. The Trump Administration directed schools to provide more procedural safeguards, and Yale incorporated such measures mandating witness testimony and cross-examination, but it was one year after Khan was expelled.

As Khan's defamation case moves back to the district court, the discovery process will begin once again to adjudicate the incident that occurred in 2015. Yet, everything is contingent on another set of Title IX policy reversals from the Biden Administration. Though delayed multiple times, new regulations—similar to Obama-era rules—are expected to limit certain due process rights of the accused in Title IX cases, but also for the accuser.

Title IX Regulations Change Often

The decision comes as the national debate over how schools manage sexual misconduct. The federal civil rights law prohibits sex-based discrimination and other misconduct in institutions of higher education—as well as K-12 schools—address such allegations under Title IX, but regulations will change with prevailing political winds.

Regardless of how Title IX fluctuates, you have the right to due process and a fair defense. Before your school disciplinary board works to end your academic career, get in touch with a professional who can build a robust defense. The Lento Law Firm Education Law Team works with students and their families nationwide to provide an opportunity to stand up to school administrators and protect your rights. Call 888-535-3686 or use the online service to schedule a consultation now.